Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
You could be right Nige_W. It's all a gamble atm. I agree Nanoco's scientists are top notch and my hope/feeling is the US Customer will continue to support Nanoco in funding research of Nano particles in the short term. Regarding takeover, I accept anything is possible. ATB.
Hi upbeat
I was under the impression that nanosys did not produce CFQD's but see:
https://www.nanosysinc.com/products
Whatever Samsung use does not mean use they could not benefit from nano's patents to increase production and quality, so I am sure they would be very interested, and as I said before they would get rid of issues concerning patent infringements and pick up 100 of the best Nano Mats Scientists in the world. They bought QDVision, why not buy Nanosys and Nanoco - then the world leader in CFQD's - with a huge potential for expansion beyond display.
At a price of 11.65, I think nano are massively undervalued whatever happens (but no idea what/when something will happen). Things are happening (no doubt and quickly) in the background - talks with Apple, no T/O mentioned yet, so what can ME say? Think an announcement will be made fairly soon, (so hopefully good in short term).
I just hope nano survives this crisis and I hope Apple guarantees this - the main reason no bidding war yet (Imho).
Btw just had a look for Nanosys Mrkt Cap and can't find anything? Even on the other board. Too late now.
BoL
I am constantly looking for the short-term investment case here having been a past investor. There is definitely potential whether medium to long term I have no doubt nor do I believe Nanoco will go bust. Excellent posts from some LTH's sums it up for me perfectly in the high risk of a short-term raise esp imv considering the high % of revenue lost to the US customer while the gamble remains of a further deal emerging.
Nigwit suggesting on the other board Wah Hong with their 'perky' sp and the possibility of AUO AMVA monitors with 90% DCI-P3 colour gamut could be Nanoco's QDs to me is also a bit of a stretch. Correct me if I'm wrong LTH's but haven't we been here before, last year (I think) with the Acer Predator gaming monitor we all hoped contained Nanoco's CFQDs?
A lot will depend on the outcome of the ROHS extension imv although I can imagine the OEMs not switching until nearer mid 2021 when the Cadmium Dots are still legal should no ROHS extension be granted.
Nige_W, I don't get why Samsung would buy Nanoco considering their Ventures division have invested in Nanosys (LG Display too) and currently license their IP?
I agree it's hard to value the IP - I'm more interested in the unique nano-particles research compared to Nanocos CFQD's where the competition (Nanosys, Avantama) and advancements in tech (eg ELQDs) are great, together with the dependency on OEM's timelines.
I'm still searching for anything Nanoco related and found mention of them together with Nanosys in this patent from Fujifilms. They have tested Nanosys's QDEF film and Nanoco's QDs used with Merck's film and are entering into the QD film foray with their own thinner film although who's QDs they will use is anyones guess?
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=2019204646A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20190704&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#
https://www.japanchemicaldaily.com/2019/06/28/fujifilm-looks-to-enable-narrow-bezel-displays-by-providing-thinner-quantum-dot-film/
Certainly could do with some innovation from Nanoco in the coming months ( years probably won't exist).
Creativity is thinking up new things - Innovation is doing new things.
This Govt does not have any long term plans for anything .
Absolutely agree on UK government treatment of our tech firms. We allow the innovative to be scooped up by our competitors for short term gain and lose the long term benefits to other countries.
The IP is worth what the markets will pay. I doubt there is appetite for Samsung to hold all IP on CFQD, so competition from others and resistance from the existing NANO licence holders would be the likely outcome, if RoHS is enforced.
Whatever happens, it could either happen at any moment, or take months/years.
Hi ddubya
The only thing I disagree with you is the value of IP. Samsung is capable of calculating the savings made by using nano's mass production system... so can value nano's IP. Also it gets rid of the possible issue of corporate lawyers getting hold of nano's IP and suing them.
From this point of view I regard Samsung would happily pay £200m + for nano, and revenue does not matter at all.
Not only that but they will also acquire 100 odd of the best R&D nano mats Scientists in the world. More difficult to value, but to become undisputed World leader in CFQD display tech must appeal to them (Betamax?)
Don't need to make much money out of CFQD's when (almost) every display maker in the world are paying you royalties (as proven by Arm).
Last point, I think Govt should prevent a sale, but on Jollies now, and far too bovvered about their own jobs to worry about nano. They should never have allowed the sale of Arm.
BoL
We need to await the outcome of RoHS Nige, but if it does not go NANO’s way, I consider sale a very likely outcome, either in part(s) or in total. Because NANO has no meaningful revenue (as ARM had) sale proceeds would of course be of much lower order, even if there were competing bids, and £100m would be an excellent result.
The real prize is commercialisation now (or soon) and a sale in several years time, when the scale of potential is clear to the market. If the RoHS decision supports it, NANO may have a Display lifeline and any funding required likely supplied by LOAM through a further discounted placement.
Hi Nige
Not sure about a lovers Tiff , but appears to be a pretty good divorce settlement.
What price trust and loyalty these days ?
BoL
Hi Troubles and havealot
Badly worded for a reason or lovers Tiff? I wonder who wrote it. Everybody thought Apple had pulled the plug, yet still in negotiations. Or just sell at 45 and buy back at 12.7?
BoL
Hi ddubya
I agree no guarantee of revenue (maybe I could argue that some income from Dow, Merck and Wah Hong for testing), but that is not the point. The potential is massive (revenue hardly matters).
More importantly, even if worst comes to the worst and nano goes bust, their IP and production facility at Runcorn is of far greater value than their current Mrkt Cap (of £28m). Sale price of nano should be at least asset value + a premium, which I regard as £100m + a lot!
I think there is no way nano can go bust and expect an offer to be made by a predator, then maybe followed by offers from Samsung, Apple, Wah Hong...
Arm Holdings never made anything - entirely IP - but SoftBank paid £1,500m for them. Of course they had a huge amount of (increasing) revenue, which is where nano will be in a few years time.
Investing is a gamble and a judgement. If nano sold for >£100m my judgement is correct (it is massively undervalued now), else it goes bust and patents are worthless, then I was wrong. So Dyor…
BoL
Hi Nige. The Report and Accounts detail dates back to November 2017 (or earlier) and some statements, such as the divestment of Solar, have not come to pass. There really is no evidence to suggest that contracts with Wah Hong, Dow and Merck are not far away. In the absence of RoHS enforcement at end Oct, the only known income stream post 2019 is limited to Careware, so I would agree this investment most certainly remains a gamble.
" badly worded " - " lucky " for some.
Just like everything, it all started from a dot . ............................................................................
' I think it was a badly worded press release when they announced Apple had pulled the plug ………………...'
Not everyone has lost out as a result of the RNS eg CEO sold 1.6mil @ 45p prior to RNS and bought back in @12.7p afterwards.
Hi BtB & TLW
Don't think any chance of another dilution (hopefully BoD learnt from last time).
People keep talking of no revenue after 2019, but this is simply not true - see:
www.nanocotechnologies.com/system/files/uploads/financialdocs/nanoco-group-plc-annual-report-and-accounts-2017.pdf
In particular the developments made with Wah Hong, Dow and Merck on pages 4 and 5. No contracts yet but can't be far away. This was all before Apple pulled out (which I think might not be a bad thing for nano, like their originally exclusive deal with Dow).
Big Backers like Loam, Deutsche Bank, and Edison still believe in nano and Apple has not deserted them. I think it was a badly worded press release when they announced Apple had pulled the plug (they haven't cos still talking) and think a Deal is still possible. Maybe that is why nobody has yet put a bid in? Don't argue with Apple! SoftBank (who bought Arm Holdings for £ 1.5B Bn from memory) and Samsung would love to get nano IP.
Investing is gambling and speculation, but at least you can increase your chances of doing well by only investing in companies that are clearly undervalued. CFQDots are the future, and nano better positioned than any other Coy to exploit this. Based on Man Uni general research (nano 750 patents now) as opposed to Samsung (150 patents incl QD Visions - for which they paid £75m - Display only).
Btw my other investments are in House builders, clearly undervalued simply by Per's. A collapse in House prices already built into the Sp, but Imho the most undervalued, psn should be double the current price. If a massive slump all they do is lay off subbies, sit on Land Bank and rely on > £1 Bn Cash until demand increases again (like they did in Banking crisis).
Incidentally, when I worked for Geo Wimpey house building was known as SB (Speculative Building) then changed to PD (Private Development). All is a guessing game?
Need to look at the other Board to see what my Guru NigWit is saying.
BoL
Hi TLW
Thankyou for the compliments, but unfortunately I think you are confusing me with NigWit. He is on the other board, but unfortunately not here any more.
I am hoping for a lot more than 20p, but no idea when it will get there.
BoL
Hello Nige_W,
I have been invested in Nanoco for a relatively short length of time. Since then, some of my best information about the company has come from you, and a few other long term investors on the advfn board. Thank you for your detailed contributions, and your helpful reply here.
My holding is relatively small in relation to my portfolios, but sufficient to generate a decent profit should the share price rise to my original target of 20p or above. I believe that Nanoco's IP alone will tempt a buyer into making an offer, and it would not surprise me if there aren't a few candidates already running a ruler over the company's assets, and assessing their future potential.
Like you, I intend to hold firm, despite the extreme volatility. Originally, I regarded this investment as something of a "punt". Despite the negative opinions of some contributors both here, and on advfn, I am by now slightly more confident about the profit potential of this investment.
Regards, and best wishes.
Hi TLW
Given the worst possible case, nano runs out of cash and goes bust, there can be no doubt a company will buy them.
Current MrktCap £27m, I regard their IP alone worth several times that, let alone plant....
Predators must be lurking now and in the mean time what can ME say? In discussions with several companies negotiating price, but can't say anything until a firm offer is made.
In any event the company must be worth at least its assets value (whatever you value that at).
All but 1 of the shorters pulled out (Teton Capital 0.67%, down from 7.5%).
No way am I selling, BoL
Yes Nitro, and the same thing happened earlier this week on thin trading.
Hardly surprising. The bears seem to be having it all their own way for the time being. I maintain that there is a case to remain invested here, although others may take a diametrically opposite view.
Big swing in half a day +5% to -6%